Seriously. I know it seems like Vista will never come, but in 7 to 12 short months it will be here. We've all had to tough it out in XP for over 5 years now. Certainly it's worth it to wait a few more months, and once it's out (and it's any good) it will make XP seem obsolete.
I haven't actually had the opportunity to use Vista yet, but I have been using OS X for about two years now and if Vista is anything like OS X then it will definitely make XP seem outdated in comparison.
Yes, sales and marketing guys are asshats, but they're also professionals who usually spend a lot of time with the software rehearsing and choreographing their demos, because they're the ones who have to deal with the immediate fallout, after all.
This demo didn't just drop a couple of words, or misinterpret an ambiguous sounding phrase, this was a complete melt down. A more plausible explanation is that the guy's voice was also amplified through the PA system in the room, and the computer's microphone was therefore picking up both the original voice and the delayed, amplified voice coming out of the PA.
Firefox uses the same amount of memory whether trim_on_minimize is true or not. However, if you set that to true you will dramatically increase the number page ins/outs to disk and severely reduce system performance. That's why it's disabled by default. If you're low on memory you're much better off if you restart Firefox regularly. trim_on_minimize simply makes a bad situation much worse, especially when you're low on RAM.
You don't understand the memory statistic (Working Set) that Windows Task Manager is showing you. It doesn't mean what you think it does, but you can blame Microsoft for defaulting to misleading memory statistic (and mislabeling it as 'Memory Usage')
Use Process Explorer to get an accurate representation of the memory usage on your computer.
They're simply using "iPod" as a generic term for the hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of little electronic gadgets many of us carry each day. What it boils down to is that street robbery a more lucrative activity than it used to be, and these guys will go where the money's at. Phones, mp3 players, cameras, laptops; all are pure gold to a street thug.
Increasingly, carrying headphones and a tote bag is tantamount to wearing a big red target on your back, even if the tote bag is empty.
I still can't figure out how to get an equation to pretty print to a jpg on a mac
Create your equation in either Grapher.app or the Equation Editor tool that comes bundled with Appleworks. (Equation Editor is more powerful and flexible and has a certain classic charm, but it's very old and a little clunky. Grapher is newer and easier to use).
Select and copy the equation to the clipboard. Open Preview.app. Select File->New (or hit Cmd+N); this creates a new document containing the image in your clipboard. Select File->Save As (or Cmd+Shift+S) and save as the filetype of your choice.
You can also paste equation as PDF directly into TextEdit, or Pages, or OmniOutliner, or any other fine application.
Try this: open a Finder window, put another app's window over top of it, and then put a new finder window over the app's window. Switch back into the Finder. Close the top Finder window. What should happen? What does happen?
Wait a minute. You think that closing a window should automatically change the active application? That's nuts. What if you close an application's only window? Should the active application switch to the Finder? Of course not. You clearly don't understand how Macs are supposed to work, and have worked for the last 20 years.
how should I protect myself from malicious binaries?
Close your eyes, click your heels together three times, then pretend that you've blindly compiled these binaries from source yourself, like you normally do, and proceed from there.
Cue the "tin foil hat" posts, closely followed by the "there is no privacy anyway" posts possibly followed by some random "I don't like the new layout" posts.
Let me take a shot, here...
Tin foil hats
You know, there are laws and regulations that dictate how businesses collect and use data. Specifically, they must explicitly define the purposes for which they're using your data and cannot turn around and use that data later on for other purposes without consent. Google has to be very clear about what they collect and how they use it, because you're not the only "tin foil hat" out there watching Google, after all.
Or course, if anyone doesn't like Google's privacy policy they can always close their Google account and use others' services.
There is not privacy, anyway
It's funny how many people will cite privacy concerns with Google's services while, in the same breath, advocate alternatives which either do nothing to protect your privacy (e.g. Foxmarks) or require you to explicitly give up your privacy (e.g. delicious). Most people don't get privacy.
I don't like the new layout
Actually, I like the new layout, and it looks like they're still tweaking it. But it absolutely drives me nuts that they're using the Tahoma (a.k.a. the Windows system font). And that collapsable nav bar on the left, talk about a solution in search of a problem!
Foxmarks does nothing to protect your privacy, but that won't prevent the tinfoil hats from citing privacy when offering alternatives to Google. Google, on the other hand, does support encryption, to the effect that your data is stored on their servers in encrypted form and is only decrypted locally using your key.
It seems to take up more screen real estate than the old one, and I never use the damn thing anyway.
I like the design, overall, so I figure it's time to pick nits. And what's with using Tahoma? Not as bad as Verdana, but still, ugh. What's next,.aspx pages served from IIS?
You should read Raymond Chen'sblog to get an idea of the completely ridiculous lengths Microsoft has gone, historically, to support backward compatibility in their operating systems. (To their own detriment, IMO)
All zealotry aside, there are things in Windows that are done very well, and there are things in Windows that completely suck, and the things that suck are almost universally due to some sort of backward compatibility concerns.
This kind of security model has always been present in OS X, and other various unix-like flavors, so applications written for these operating systems have always expected to explicitly request super-user authorization before doing any system-level configuration.
The situation on Windows is completely different. Microsoft is retrofitting Windows with this security model, but it must still support the vast catalog of existing software that was written assuming the traditional Windows security model. So, instead of an application or installer explicitly requesting authorization, Windows watches all processes for what amounts to security violations, halts the process and prompts the user for elevation. And now they're talking about writing shims for specific problematic applications. Yikes!
To call this over-engineering is an understatement, to say the least, but what else can they do? The value of Windows has always been in its backward compatibility, and Microsoft cannot give that up without risking their dominance in the market. But this is precisely why OS X has surpassed Windows in terms of the rate of development within the last few years (also an understatement).
It's an tasteful, incremental modernization of the Slashdot look, and it's sure to please most people.
One change I wish they had made, though, was to move the left-hand vertical menu to a horizonal drop-down menu along the top (some designs did this). The vertical orientation wastes a lot of screen real estate, and I think a change like that would make those items more noticable and visible while saving real estate. It's just a change for change's sake, I've been a slashdot reader since '98 and I've never used those links. They're invisible to me; my brian has been trained to block them out. It may be different for others, though...
It seems the MS Office team are the only group within Microsoft that provide any meaningful UI and usability innovation, and it's the type of innovation that is sorely lacking on Windows.
The whole MDI thing with its bunch of tiny, rearrangeable menu bars with tiny little buttons was a bad idea in 1991, and it's bad today. And the menu bar only makes sense when it's attached to the top of the screen. If it's attached to the window then there's absolutely no reason to constrain it to a single like of text.
I am by no means a big Microsoft fan, but I really like what they've done with the Office UI. It should have happened a long, long time ago.
What's most interesting are the benchmark results. While some screamed bloody murder over Apple's apparent downgrade to Intel's integrated graphics chipset, the new MacBook completely outclasses the old iBook on all fronts, and even out-performs the MacBook Pro in some cases (due to its slightly faster processor).
So what's worse? Integrated graphics or an underclocked Radeon X1600?
Nonetheless, the MacBook looks great, and I can't help but feel sorry for the people who rushed out and got a MacBook Pro. It seems that Apple rushed the Pro out of the door, whereas they took their time with the MacBook and got it right.
Apparently gamers will giggle uncontrollably when hearing the phrase "we went to the store" and will squirt milk out of their noses when someone mentions golfer Michelle Wei.
If anything, Wii is a slightly childish name, and in that respect Nintendo apparently got it right on target.
Name changes like this always go over like a wet fart in a space suit, at first. The bottom line is that if it's a cool system them people will happily call it by whatever its name is.
On paper, names like Pac Man and Donkey Kong (Where are the donkeys? Show me the donkeys!) are ridiculous and awkward Japanese mistranslations, but no one would suggest their names negatively affected the games' popularity. If anything, the weirdness kind of helps, if the game itself is cool.
Nonetheless, right now I'm not looking forward to walking into EB and asking if they've got any new Wiis. Fortunately, one can always use "The New Nintendo" and people will know what you're talking about.
The ultimate point here is that, in the larger discussion regarding Rockbox on the iPod, that firmware enables all types of music fans to listen to music in the various ways they like.
So, when you say "enables all types of music fans to listen to music in the various ways they like" you mean the ability to listen to gapless classical music, or can you further elaborate this completely abstract, meaningless statement?
Very well, I concede that if gapless tracks are an important requirement, then Rockbox is a possible solution, although I would question why someone with this specific requirement would purchase an iPod in the first place. Fashion, perhaps? If your collection is static and consists mostly of classical music, I'd suggest a Sony mini-disc player.
Music is important to me, and I'm completely open to new technology that improves the listening experience and helps me sort out the new music that is constantly being added to my collection. But it bothers me when people push iPod alternatives that only pick off the low hanging fruit while completely missing the hard problems that iPod/iTunes solves. I can only conclude that these people have simplistic requirements for their music listening and are in no position to offer their option or make suggestions. I am compelled to point out bad advice.
It's naïve of you to think that good products are simply the result of "business and marketing", but it's a common misconception, especially among those who try to push iPod alternatives without compelling arguments. After all, if you don't understand why a product is good, what else can you use to explain its popularity? Of course, the popular product is rarely the best, so we're all instinctively suspicious of such products.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. I know it seems like Vista will never come, but in 7 to 12 short months it will be here. We've all had to tough it out in XP for over 5 years now. Certainly it's worth it to wait a few more months, and once it's out (and it's any good) it will make XP seem obsolete.
I haven't actually had the opportunity to use Vista yet, but I have been using OS X for about two years now and if Vista is anything like OS X then it will definitely make XP seem outdated in comparison.
Wait for Vista.
Yes, sales and marketing guys are asshats, but they're also professionals who usually spend a lot of time with the software rehearsing and choreographing their demos, because they're the ones who have to deal with the immediate fallout, after all.
This demo didn't just drop a couple of words, or misinterpret an ambiguous sounding phrase, this was a complete melt down. A more plausible explanation is that the guy's voice was also amplified through the PA system in the room, and the computer's microphone was therefore picking up both the original voice and the delayed, amplified voice coming out of the PA.
Firefox uses the same amount of memory whether trim_on_minimize is true or not. However, if you set that to true you will dramatically increase the number page ins/outs to disk and severely reduce system performance. That's why it's disabled by default. If you're low on memory you're much better off if you restart Firefox regularly. trim_on_minimize simply makes a bad situation much worse, especially when you're low on RAM.
You don't understand the memory statistic (Working Set) that Windows Task Manager is showing you. It doesn't mean what you think it does, but you can blame Microsoft for defaulting to misleading memory statistic (and mislabeling it as 'Memory Usage')
Use Process Explorer to get an accurate representation of the memory usage on your computer.
They're simply using "iPod" as a generic term for the hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of little electronic gadgets many of us carry each day. What it boils down to is that street robbery a more lucrative activity than it used to be, and these guys will go where the money's at. Phones, mp3 players, cameras, laptops; all are pure gold to a street thug.
Increasingly, carrying headphones and a tote bag is tantamount to wearing a big red target on your back, even if the tote bag is empty.
Obviously not. No one who expects to be taken seriously uses the term "fan-boy" anymore.
Create your equation in either Grapher.app or the Equation Editor tool that comes bundled with Appleworks. (Equation Editor is more powerful and flexible and has a certain classic charm, but it's very old and a little clunky. Grapher is newer and easier to use).
Select and copy the equation to the clipboard. Open Preview.app. Select File->New (or hit Cmd+N); this creates a new document containing the image in your clipboard. Select File->Save As (or Cmd+Shift+S) and save as the filetype of your choice.
You can also paste equation as PDF directly into TextEdit, or Pages, or OmniOutliner, or any other fine application.
Close your eyes, click your heels together three times, then pretend that you've blindly compiled these binaries from source yourself, like you normally do, and proceed from there.
It uses Qt on OS X as well. I actually thought it was Java Swing when I first used it; clunky with a capital K. Works fine, though, otherwise.
Let me take a shot, here...
Tin foil hats
You know, there are laws and regulations that dictate how businesses collect and use data. Specifically, they must explicitly define the purposes for which they're using your data and cannot turn around and use that data later on for other purposes without consent. Google has to be very clear about what they collect and how they use it, because you're not the only "tin foil hat" out there watching Google, after all.
Or course, if anyone doesn't like Google's privacy policy they can always close their Google account and use others' services.
There is not privacy, anyway
It's funny how many people will cite privacy concerns with Google's services while, in the same breath, advocate alternatives which either do nothing to protect your privacy (e.g. Foxmarks) or require you to explicitly give up your privacy (e.g. delicious). Most people don't get privacy.
I don't like the new layout
Actually, I like the new layout, and it looks like they're still tweaking it. But it absolutely drives me nuts that they're using the Tahoma (a.k.a. the Windows system font). And that collapsable nav bar on the left, talk about a solution in search of a problem!
There, I think that about covers it.
No.
Foxmarks does nothing to protect your privacy, but that won't prevent the tinfoil hats from citing privacy when offering alternatives to Google. Google, on the other hand, does support encryption, to the effect that your data is stored on their servers in encrypted form and is only decrypted locally using your key.
It seems to take up more screen real estate than the old one, and I never use the damn thing anyway.
.aspx pages served from IIS?
I like the design, overall, so I figure it's time to pick nits. And what's with using Tahoma? Not as bad as Verdana, but still, ugh. What's next,
You should read Raymond Chen's blog to get an idea of the completely ridiculous lengths Microsoft has gone, historically, to support backward compatibility in their operating systems. (To their own detriment, IMO)
All zealotry aside, there are things in Windows that are done very well, and there are things in Windows that completely suck, and the things that suck are almost universally due to some sort of backward compatibility concerns.
This kind of security model has always been present in OS X, and other various unix-like flavors, so applications written for these operating systems have always expected to explicitly request super-user authorization before doing any system-level configuration.
The situation on Windows is completely different. Microsoft is retrofitting Windows with this security model, but it must still support the vast catalog of existing software that was written assuming the traditional Windows security model. So, instead of an application or installer explicitly requesting authorization, Windows watches all processes for what amounts to security violations, halts the process and prompts the user for elevation. And now they're talking about writing shims for specific problematic applications. Yikes!
To call this over-engineering is an understatement, to say the least, but what else can they do? The value of Windows has always been in its backward compatibility, and Microsoft cannot give that up without risking their dominance in the market. But this is precisely why OS X has surpassed Windows in terms of the rate of development within the last few years (also an understatement).
You computer scientists and your crazy loose-cable theories. I just like to believe that the Fonz works in mysterious ways.
It's an tasteful, incremental modernization of the Slashdot look, and it's sure to please most people.
One change I wish they had made, though, was to move the left-hand vertical menu to a horizonal drop-down menu along the top (some designs did this). The vertical orientation wastes a lot of screen real estate, and I think a change like that would make those items more noticable and visible while saving real estate. It's just a change for change's sake, I've been a slashdot reader since '98 and I've never used those links. They're invisible to me; my brian has been trained to block them out. It may be different for others, though...
It seems the MS Office team are the only group within Microsoft that provide any meaningful UI and usability innovation, and it's the type of innovation that is sorely lacking on Windows.
The whole MDI thing with its bunch of tiny, rearrangeable menu bars with tiny little buttons was a bad idea in 1991, and it's bad today. And the menu bar only makes sense when it's attached to the top of the screen. If it's attached to the window then there's absolutely no reason to constrain it to a single like of text.
I am by no means a big Microsoft fan, but I really like what they've done with the Office UI. It should have happened a long, long time ago.
What's most interesting are the benchmark results. While some screamed bloody murder over Apple's apparent downgrade to Intel's integrated graphics chipset, the new MacBook completely outclasses the old iBook on all fronts, and even out-performs the MacBook Pro in some cases (due to its slightly faster processor).
So what's worse? Integrated graphics or an underclocked Radeon X1600?
Nonetheless, the MacBook looks great, and I can't help but feel sorry for the people who rushed out and got a MacBook Pro. It seems that Apple rushed the Pro out of the door, whereas they took their time with the MacBook and got it right.
Perhaps PC Magazine is for suckers.
Grow up, indeed.
Apparently gamers will giggle uncontrollably when hearing the phrase "we went to the store" and will squirt milk out of their noses when someone mentions golfer Michelle Wei.
If anything, Wii is a slightly childish name, and in that respect Nintendo apparently got it right on target.
Name changes like this always go over like a wet fart in a space suit, at first. The bottom line is that if it's a cool system them people will happily call it by whatever its name is.
On paper, names like Pac Man and Donkey Kong (Where are the donkeys? Show me the donkeys!) are ridiculous and awkward Japanese mistranslations, but no one would suggest their names negatively affected the games' popularity. If anything, the weirdness kind of helps, if the game itself is cool.
Nonetheless, right now I'm not looking forward to walking into EB and asking if they've got any new Wiis. Fortunately, one can always use "The New Nintendo" and people will know what you're talking about.
Yeah, but it's just a bunch of unpaid interns sharing a couple of beige-box PCs and an iPod.
Attention Slashdot readers.
You have been trolled (by Dvorak). Have a nice day.
So, when you say "enables all types of music fans to listen to music in the various ways they like" you mean the ability to listen to gapless classical music, or can you further elaborate this completely abstract, meaningless statement?
Very well, I concede that if gapless tracks are an important requirement, then Rockbox is a possible solution, although I would question why someone with this specific requirement would purchase an iPod in the first place. Fashion, perhaps? If your collection is static and consists mostly of classical music, I'd suggest a Sony mini-disc player.
Music is important to me, and I'm completely open to new technology that improves the listening experience and helps me sort out the new music that is constantly being added to my collection. But it bothers me when people push iPod alternatives that only pick off the low hanging fruit while completely missing the hard problems that iPod/iTunes solves. I can only conclude that these people have simplistic requirements for their music listening and are in no position to offer their option or make suggestions. I am compelled to point out bad advice.
It's naïve of you to think that good products are simply the result of "business and marketing", but it's a common misconception, especially among those who try to push iPod alternatives without compelling arguments. After all, if you don't understand why a product is good, what else can you use to explain its popularity? Of course, the popular product is rarely the best, so we're all instinctively suspicious of such products.